Contemporary Capitalist Dictatorships

[Positivist]

What liberal (as opposed to state) capitalist economies are bolstered by blatant dictators today? Yes, I am aware that in reality the existing property arrangements and accumulative regulations promote a dictatorship of the capitalist class, but what I'm asking is what free market regimes openly embrace non-representative rule today? There are certainly a wealth of historical examples: Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, South Korea, Uruguay, Indonesia, Mexico, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Bolivia, Ghana, Iran.

The only modern examples I am aware of are the Maldives, and Singapore. What others are there?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Saudi Arabia and the US (or the west in general) have a pretty symbiotic relationship along with a couple other regimes in the region such as UAE and Oman.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Nearly every single Islamist-run country is a capitalist dictatorship. China is also one. Many African countries as well. Zimbabwe, anyone? Yeah, there are actually quite a lot.

[MarxSchmarx]

aside from the muslim states and much of africa, depending on who you ask, Israel is a capitalist dictatorship, as is russia, honduras, sri lanka and vietnam ,laos,cambodia

[tuwix]

Yes, I am aware that in reality the existing property arrangements and accumulative regulations promote a dictatorship of the capitalist class, but what I'm asking is what free market regimes openly embrace non-representative rule today?

There is no free market regime because free marker can't exist due to its own definitions.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Modern China is most definitely an example of such a state. The fact that they dress it up in 'communist' imagery is the only difference. The slow, systematic stripping away of workers rights (which were already questionable under Mao), coupled with its willingness to look the other way whilst horrific abuses by Western corporations are commited, and its insistence on absolute obedience to the Party line shows it to be almost on par with Pinochet's Chile.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

From Brandon's Impotent Rage's signature:

"American Revolutionary Democratic Socialism"

LONG LIVE

The actual amount of "free market" capitalist dictatorships is too enormous to count.

[PeoplesRepublics]

Honduras after the U.S. Backed coup in 2009

[Marshal of the People]

Australia under Tony Fascist (Abbott).

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The Obama Administration, DC, US.

[KurtFF8]

Australia under Tony Fascist (Abbott).


The Obama Administration, DC, US.


Some of the examples given in this thread are debatable, but these two are most certainly not and most certainly aren't serious responses to the OP.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Some of the examples given in this thread are debatable, but these two are most certainly not and most certainly aren't serious responses to the OP.

Actually, I sincerely disagree and was legitimately responding to the OP. While the video clip below is from a comedy (The Dictator) I think it accurately sums up my view.

wzGQcISfqvs

Which needless to say is perfectly serious and open for discussion. HA. Haha.

[KurtFF8]

The United States is most certainly a bourgeois democracy. The OP made it quite clear that they understand how property ownership, class relations, etc. make bourgeois society undemocratic. But what they meant were more formal or classic "dictatorships" i.e. like Fracno or Pinochet who didn't even put forward the illusion that they were democratically chosen to govern those bourgeois societies.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The United States is most certainly a bourgeois democracy. The OP made it quite clear that they understand how property ownership, class relations, etc. make bourgeois society undemocratic. But what they meant were more formal or classic "dictatorships" i.e. like Fracno or Pinochet who didn't even put forward the illusion that they were democratically chosen to govern those bourgeois societies.

Given the guidelines of the OP specifically, I'd still argue the US is a dictatorship.

[Ember Catching]

The Obama Administration, DC, US.

Australia under Tony Fascist (Abbott).
If you deny the historical function of parliament, an organ for imposing the majority's will upon the minority, as necessarily the arbitration of class struggle then you deny the historical function of dictatorship, a violent imposition of will upon the unconsenting, as necessarily the exacerbation of class antagonisms. This does not mean the state is unresponsive to material circumstance — on the contrary, it reaffirms the dictum: "The state prefers to achieve its ends through constitutional means, but it will by-pass these whenever necessary." ['German angst and the surveillance State', Communist Left #34, August 2013]

[KurtFF8]

Given the guidelines of the OP specifically, I'd still argue the US is a dictatorship.


What liberal (as opposed to state) capitalist economies are bolstered by blatant dictators today?

what I'm asking is what free market regimes openly embrace non-representative rule today?The United States is based on representative rule. The executive and legislative bodies are chosen via popular vote and the main leaders of the government are not appointed and do have to face elections. This is unlike places like Chile under Pinochet, or Spain under Franco which did not even have the facade of formal democracy.

There is such a thing as a bourgeois democracy, and Marx pointed out quite early in his writings the divorce between formal freedom and actual inequality.

I believe the OP was trying to ask for examples like the ones they asked for, and the US quite clearly does not fit that criterion.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The United States is based on representative rule. The executive and legislative bodies are chosen via popular vote and the main leaders of the government are not appointed and do have to face elections. This is unlike places like Chile under Pinochet, or Spain under Franco which did not even have the facade of formal democracy.

There is such a thing as a bourgeois democracy, and Marx pointed out quite early in his writings the divorce between formal freedom and actual inequality.

I believe the OP was trying to ask for examples like the ones they asked for, and the US quite clearly does not fit that criterion.

While the US is based on representative rule, and we do vote for the President, I would agree with Vox Populi.

The people who make the most difference in the United States are certainly not elected. How about the Federal Reserve board and chairman? Yes, the chairman is appointed by the President. But these are the people who directly control the monetary supply and can cause a recession at will. These people are not elected, yet they have a direct effect on America's economy which affects the lives of every American who isn't wealthy.

Also, how about the people who create US foreign policy? We have zero control over this. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission makes these decisions and it always serves the military industrial complex. We have zero control over that and in fact, many presidents have served in those agencies.

How about the CIA? They have participated in countless coups to install pro capitalist dictators in third world countries. This also affects US tax payers, because the tax payers fund this. These people are not elected either.

So it's safe to say the US is a dictatorship because the people we elect do not make the decisions that directly affect us. Some sure, Congress makes laws of course. But of course you must be ridiculously wealthy to be a Congress person or the President. So it's still a bit iffy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While the US is based on representative rule, and we do vote for the President, I would agree with Vox Populi.

The people who make the most difference in the United States are certainly not elected. How about the Federal Reserve board and chairman? Yes, the chairman is appointed by the President. But these are the people who directly control the monetary supply and can cause a recession at will. These people are not elected, yet they have a direct effect on America's economy which affects the lives of every American who isn't wealthy.

Also, how about the people who create US foreign policy? We have zero control over this. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission makes these decisions and it always serves the military industrial complex. We have zero control over that and in fact, many presidents have served in those agencies.

How about the CIA? They have participated in countless coups to install pro capitalist dictators in third world countries. This also affects US tax payers, because the tax payers fund this. These people are not elected either.

So it's safe to say the US is a dictatorship because the people we elect do not make the decisions that directly affect us. Some sure, Congress makes laws of course. But of course you must be ridiculously wealthy to be a Congress person or the President. So it's still a bit iffy.

Who said A bourgeois democracy has to be very democratic? Spying, business-government collusion, helping the rich rule the poor, expanding markets and imperial power, making sure official electoral politics have really nothing to do with actual important issues? This is what bourgeois democracy looks like!

It's a dictatorship of capital in a very general sense, but not political dictatorships.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Who said A bourgeois democracy has to be very democratic? Spying, business-government collusion, helping the rich rule the poor, expanding markets and imperial power, making sure official electoral politics have really nothing to do with actual important issues? This is what bourgeois democracy looks like!

It's a dictatorship of capital in a very general sense, but not political dictatorships.

Ok well that is a very good point. I suppose I am taking it to mean in practice rather than what the mainstream international community officially calls a dictatorship. So I guess in technical terms that is true because of how the US political system is officially set up.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The United States is based on representative rule.

No, it's not, and never has been. America has never been a representative bourgeois democracy rather it has always been a constitutional republic and I think the differences between the two systems of governance should be noted here. You need only look at some of the words of the "founding fathers," to see they were very critical of democracy and the "tyranny of the mob," and the "brutish common folk," or 'the people.'


The executive and legislative bodies are chosen via popular vote and the main leaders of the government are not appointed and do have to face elections.

The president and the vice president of the US are chosen by the electoral college, not the people. The people's votes are merely suggestions which can be ignored as was the case in the Gore-Bush debacle. Even past this there isn't really a 'representative government' despite all pretenses and illusions of choice and freedom.


This is unlike places like Chile under Pinochet, or Spain under Franco which did not even have the facade of formal democracy.

So, it's a difference between one guy being a dick for a really long time and multiple guys being dicks over a long period of time by taking turns? Is there really any qualitative difference between the two?


There is such a thing as a bourgeois democracy, and Marx pointed out quite early in his writings the divorce between formal freedom and actual inequality.

Ok, and America isn't a democracy and never has been.


I believe the OP was trying to ask for examples like the ones they asked for, and the US quite clearly does not fit that criterion.

Again, this is debatable. Tho, I get what your trying to say, they're asking for your "stereotypical dictator," states and not your crafty America which is mad good at PR.

[Tim Cornelis]

No, it's not, and never has been. America has never been a representative bourgeois democracy rather it has always been a constitutional republic and I think the differences between the two systems of governance should be noted here. You need only look at some of the words of the "founding fathers," to see they were very critical of democracy and the "tyranny of the mob," and the "brutish common folk," or 'the people.'

Ugh. You bought into the right-wing republican false narrative that representative democracies and constitutionals republics are not the same thing. It's both liberal democracies: constitutional constraints on the legislative activity of regularly, freely, and fairly elected legislative and/or executive organs.

A constitutional republic, a constitutional monarchy (not always considered as such though), a parliamentary democracy, or representative democracy are all liberal democracies. The Netherlands, United States, Canada, UK, Italy, South Africa, Brazil are all liberal democracies.

Incidentally, the Greek word for Republic is Demokratia (also meaning democracy).


The president and the vice president of the US are chosen by the electoral college, not the people. The people's votes are merely suggestions which can be ignored as was the case in the Gore-Bush debacle. Even past this there isn't really a 'representative government' despite all pretenses and illusions of choice and freedom.

So, it's a difference between one guy being a dick for a really long time and multiple guys being dicks over a long period of time by taking turns? Is there really any qualitative difference between the two?


None of this matters as it still falls within definition of liberal democracy.
Incidentally, the Gore-Bush debacle was, if I remember correctly, due to the first-past-the-post electoral design, not because votes are "suggestions."

Of course, the whole point of liberal democracy is maintain the illusion of plurality and free choice, while necessary, constitutionally, liberal democracies defend the right to property. This is not a negation of the notion of liberal democracy though.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Ugh. You bought into the right-wing republican false narrative that representative democracies and constitutionals republics are not the same thing.

UGh, I brought in facts which must now be labeled "right-wing," for no apparent reason.


It's both liberal democracies: constitutional constraints on the legislative activity of regularly, freely, and fairly elected legislative and/or executive organs.

^America falls under none of this and never has. Democracy and republicanism are not the same thing even if they are similar.


A constitutional republic, a constitutional monarchy (not always considered as such though), a parliamentary democracy, or representative democracy are all liberal democracies. The Netherlands, United States, Canada, UK, Italy, South Africa, Brazil are all liberal democracies.

What does this "liberal democracy," term even mean? How is the system of governance of say the US a carbon copy of the one in the UK? Da faq?

They're not the same thing otherwise they would be called the same thing and while the may certainly be similar they most definately are not the same.


Incidentally, the Greek word for Republic is Demokratia (also meaning democracy).

No, it's not, it would probably be 'politeia' but def not 'demokratia.'


None of this matters as it still falls within definition of liberal democracy.

As defined by whom?

[KurtFF8]

It's pretty clear that a bourgeois republic is quite different than what the OP is talking about, however.

[Tim Cornelis]

UGh, I brought in facts which must now be labeled "right-wing," for no apparent reason.

It just bothers me seeing how often right-wingers bring it up, like the corporatism thing.


^America falls under none of this and never has. Democracy and republicanism are not the same thing even if they are similar.

Yeah it has. The United States has elections of legislative and executive organs (Congress, President) with regular interval (4 year maximum), the legislative activity is constrained by the constitution (e.g. can't expropriate property at will), these elections are, by liberal standards, free and fair.


What does this "liberal democracy," term even mean? How is the system of governance of say the US a carbon copy of the one in the UK? Da faq?

They're varations of liberal democracy. For instance, first-past-the-post is one variations is an electoral variant. There's presidential republics, constitutional monarchies, parliamentary republics, etc.


They're not the same thing otherwise they would be called the same thing and while the may certainly be similar they most definately are not the same.

That makes no sense. "They're not the same thing otherwise they would be called the same thing", they are called the same thing: liberal democracy. Within liberal democracy you have variations, again: presidential republics, constitutional monarchies, parliamentary republics, semi-presidential republics. They are not the same liberal democratic type, but they are all liberal democracies.

And by that logic we might argue that Asians are not humans like Europeans because if they were, they'd be called the same thing (Europeans or humans, and not Asians).


No, it's not, it would probably be 'politeia' but def not 'demokratia.'

It is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Army_of_Greece

"Badge of the DSE. The letter Delta stands for Demokratia, meaning "Democracy" and "Republic""

http://translate.google.nl/#en/el/republic


As defined by whom?

By whomever defined liberal democracy.

I like the term, because it is essentially synonymous for bourgeois democracy yet is not tainted with the stigma of Marxism and yet implicitly admits that it's not ideologically neutral.

[TriPac Dude]

I am Ukrainian living in America, and I can most definitely say that it is a capitalist, rich people's dictatorship. The present administration calls itself "democratic" but in reality they are glorified conservatives who want to rule with an iron fist over the common people. They are a sorry disgrace to every left leaning party in the world.

[RebelDog]

Whilst the UK may or may not be a 'capitalist dictatorship', my workplace is in the UK and is definitely a capitalist dictatorship.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Walmart and Starbucks of course.